THIS IS THE LAST ONE BEFORE BED, BUT MAKE SURE YOU READ THIS ONE. ITS THE MOST IMPORTANT.
Without even approaching my personal feelings about Tax and Regulate, this article does such a bad job of addressing the actual issues that us “rabble-rousers” have.
I can safely say that I fall into none of your 3 groups. I am not a LEO in any way shape or form. I am not a commercial grower or one’s dependant. And I am not an old guard of Prop 215. I am, however, an attorney that, unlike the proponents of this bill, see poorly written law interpreted against the cannabis users every day in court. I am someone that can read this bill and see it for what it will be one day in front of a judge: vague, poorly written, and open to vast interpretation by judges who are anti-cannabis.
“Who needs their $350 to $450 per ounce cannabis when we can all safely and legally grow our own weed at home for about $12.50 an ounce?” You are making several huge and incorrect assumptions here. First, you assume that everyone will be able to grow their own. If that were true, there wouldn’t be medical marijuana dispensaries now. There are a HUGE amount of them because not everyone can grow cannabis and many of those that can can’t grow high quality cannabis. Second, you assume that anyone can do it cheaply. Perhaps in Washington your overhead is low, but come on down to Southern California and see how much your home grown stuff will cost. And third, you assume that ANYONE is going to lower their prices for recreational cannabis. That is a hugely misguided assumption. Proponents of Tax and Regulate have already admitted that “if I already know you are going to pay X for the product, why would I lower the price even if it is cheaper for me to make it.” And that is a direct quote. So if you think that suddenly your local dispensary is going to be selling $15 ounces, you are insane.
Your assumption that the likes of Dennis Perone are opposing Tax and Regulate purely out of jealousy is absurd and insulting. God forbid someone disagrees with you, they must be irrational. Or perhaps, they have a very good reason for opposing Tax and Regulate. I sure do. And it has nothing to do with professional jealousy. I’m not in any way in competition with Richard Lee or even any of his minions. I sure haven’t heard Dennis say that he is opposing the bill strictly out of jealousy. So, unless you’re a mind reader, I would suggest that you keep your highly slanderous and ridiculous comments to your inner group of friends. My testimony is not false or a “sham.” My issues are real. They are important. They could ruin this industry. For you to brush them off as if they don’t matter just makes me realize you have clearly not read this initiative for what it is. You have joined the rah-rah-rah-ing without regard for the problems it will (not might) cause. And I find that to be a “sad state of affairs.” The fact that you are trying to intimidate those of us that oppose by calling us names and attempting to make us look bad to those that are undecided just proves that you know we have valid issues and you are scared that we will win.
“Look what an example will do!” Yes indeed. Look at what an example California has been thus far. Other states are watching us so closely. But not for the reasons that proponents of Tax and Regulate want us to think. Other states are looking at California and saying “how can we avoid the mess California has made?” And “what can we do to avoid being like California?”
“Obama’s Justice Department agreed not to oppose or harass any state marijuana initiatives.” That is patently false. Re-read the statement made by US Attorney Eric Holder.
“Under this initiative you can’t be fired from work if you smoke cannabis.” Again, patently false. Just because Richard Lee told you that is true, does not make it so. Most Californians are “at-will employees” which means they can be fired at any time for any reason except their race, gender, age, or sexual orientation. If your employer drug tests, they can still fire you for consuming cannabis over the weekend. Just like they can fire you for getting drunk on your weekends. Just like they can fire you for having blue eyes. And just like they can fire you for having smelly feet. Furthermore, even the few Californians that are contract employees, the Federal Drug Free workplace rules still apply to most employees. Since it will still be illegal federally, they can still fire you. Even if you weren’t under the influence at work. Period.
“Only the cartels, street gangs, and unlicensed exploiter commercial growers will see the cops more frequently.” Yeah, those people, AND medical patients and recreational users alike. President Obama has outright laughed at the idea of recreational legalization. He has told the DEA to make medical patients following state law “not a priority.” But he has not said so for recreational users. Does anyone remember the raids by the DEA California used to have? Welcome back. And since, under this law, at first glance it will be impossible to tell the difference between a medical patient and a recreational grower, medical patients will be injured by DEA raids meant for recreational users.
“The proposed penalty under this bill for supplying to 18-20 year olds with cannabis is identical to the fine and penalty for supplying liquor or beer in California.” Wrong again. The fine and penalty for selling beer to an 18-20 year old is a misdemeanor. The fine and penalty for selling cannabis to an 18-20 year old is a felony carrying 3-5-7 years in prison. That is more than a little different. Unless you just give it away (but who does).
“The initiative doesn’t add any penalties for toking outdoors or in the same space as minors.” There is no law presently against either of these things. So yes, it does add penalties. It would not be the same as before the bill was passed.
“Minors need only be in another room while cannabis is being consumed.” Untrue. They cannot be in the same space as you. You may define “space” as room. Richard Lee might too. But he didn’t put “room.” He put “space.” And a judge might not agree with either of you that “space” means “room.” He might think that “space” means house. He might think that “space” means apartment complex. Like you say, it is a psychoactive that travels through the air. It will easily travel from apartment to apartment. It certainly won’t be a small inconvenience if you can’t smoke in your apartment. Then where?
“After this initiative, California will be flooded with cannabis at dramatically reduced prices.” According to your own previous statement, that will still be trafficking. So…no…no there will not be a flood of dramatically reduced priced cannabis. Or, you are assuming that getting a license is going to be easy. Maybe in Oakland. But no where else. The local governments are going to have to take time and effort to make up a permitting system. Los Angeles took over 5 years to decide what to do with medical cannabis. What in the world makes you think that Los Angeles will take only 5 minutes to make a permitting system for recreational cultivators/distributors?
You brought up the complaint that cannabis taxes could be used to enforce prohibition, but you failed to actually address it. In the limited response you gave, you citied lower prices as a way that this will not be true. Again, that is making an assumption that I don’t think is wise to make. Not to mention that licensing fees could do the same thing. If it costs $500,000 to become a distributor, how many distributors will there be? Your numbers for wholesale cannabis are already drastically lower than what is reasonable. But add on top of that a $100,000 cultivation license (similar to alcohol), a $100,000 wholesaler’s license, and a $100,000 distributor’s license and you will not have anywhere close to the prices you are talking about. Then add tax on top of that. Good luck with those $50 ounces.
As for tourism, if there are no licensed distributors, there is no tourism. Not to boost your bubble, but Oakland already has recreational cannabis. And we haven’t had 500,000 new jobs in California because of the sudden crazy rush in tourism. And where did you come up with your numbers? What study are you quoting that we will get 500,000 new jobs? Not to mention, you are going to scare the crap out of the mainstream audience if you are going to sell them with floods of stoners coming to California – the new “stoner’s paradise” as you say. 190 million pot heads coming to California? Yeah, that’s a winning argument for the mainstream audience.
“Dodger games and Disneyland will have a whole new attraction?” Umm…public places, no smoking allowed remember?
“Shops that sell cannabis will need to be licensed and pay taxes.” None of the nay-sayers are complaining about this. In fact, most of us having been begging to be licensed to grow and sell medical cannabis for years.
“In a legal environment, the price of cannabis will plummet.” Really? “Since Prop 215 passed in 1996 the price of marijuana has not gone down at all.” Oh…so why would it be any different with recreational? What proof do you have that it will? Because the word straight out of the proponents’ mouth is that it won’t change a bit.
“That means ANY competent grower can achieve 16 to 40 ounces every 10 weeks in their space, a generous personal or medical amount by any standard.” Unless there is more than one adult living in your residence, since you are only allowed one 5x5 per residency. And if you rent, you have to get permission from your landlord. Good luck with that, considering they can still be subject to forfeiture by the federal government.
“The only ones worse off will be gun-toting street gangs and cartels.” AND medical patients. And all recreational users that cannot grow for themselves in every city besides Oakland and San Francisco. And everyone that gets raided by the DEA because Obama does not support recreational use. And everyone that has minors in their household. And everyone that has more than one adult in their household.
You have failed to address MANY of the legitimate complaints by the “nay-sayers.” Perhaps because you had no argument against them? How about the fact that this initiative leaves the decision up to the local municipalities. And that the path of least resistance for local authorities is to do nothing and no permits will be issued for commerial cultivation, wholesaling, and distribution? Are you aware that 129 cities have an outright ban on medical marijuana dispensaries? There are more that have moratoriums. How many of those cities are going to suddenly be okay with recreational cannabis?
Or what about the concern that no law is better than bad law. I know you think that this law is the most brilliantly written law. But many people would disagree. Many attorneys that actually know how these laws play out in court disagree. If you start reading case law and see how differently the various judges have interpreted Prop 215, you will see what I mean. Vagueness will destroy this initiative.
What about the fact that this initiative creates many new crimes that will do exactly what this initiative is “supposed” to stop, make people criminals. This initiative creates a new crime for illegally purchasing cannabis. Not true before. It creates a new crime for smoking in public places. Not true before (except where it is illegal to smoke cigarettes). It creates a new crime for smoking in the same “space” as a minor.
In conclusion, please do not try to intimidate those of us that have our issues with this initiative by making us out to be jealous evil people. We have legitimate issues with this initiative. And the voting process of this country allows us to have our own opinion. We shouldn’t have to be intimidated by the likes of you or Richard Lee or anyone else because we have our own opinion.
THANKS DTP FOR THE LINK
